818426

research-article2018
2018
JIVXX
XXX 10.1177/0886260518818426Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceGarcia et al.
X10.1177/0886260518818426

Original Research
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
2021, Vol. 36(13-14) 6117­–6144
Raising Spanish Children © The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
With an Antisocial sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0886260518818426
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518818426
Tendency: Do We Know journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv

What the Optimal

Parenting Style Is?

Oscar F. Garcia,1 Olatz Lopez-Fernandez,2

and Emilia Serra1

Abstract
Families can play an essential role in preventing violent and antisocial
behaviors, which are considered a significant public health issue. However,
some studies argue that most children are antisocial only during adolescence,
and even teenagers can mimic antisocial behavior in ways that are normative
and well-adjusted. This study analyzed patterns of competence and
adjustment in young adults with and without an antisocial tendency during
adolescence from authoritative (characterized by warmth and strictness),
authoritarian (strictness but not warmth), indulgent (warmth but not
strictness), and neglectful (neither warmth nor strictness) families. Emergent
research has indicated that in a European context, the indulgent parenting
style is optimal. Offspring’s competence and adjustment were captured
through self-esteem (academic and family), psychosocial development (self-
competence and empathy), and low emotional maladjustment (nervousness
and hostility). Participants consisted of a community sample of 489 Spanish
young adults, 191 men (39.1%) and 298 women (60.9%), aged 18 to 34 years
old. The design was a 4 × 2 × 2 × 2 MANOVA (parenting style × antisocial
tendency × sex × age). Analysis of main effects showed that youths with

1University of Valencia, Spain

2Nottingham Trent University, UK
Corresponding Author:
Oscar F. Garcia, Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Faculty of
Psychology, University of Valencia, Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 21, 46010 Valencia, Spain.
Email: oscar.f.garcia@uv.es
6118 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(13-14)

an antisocial tendency have less self-esteem and psychosocial development,

but more emotional maladjustment. Regardless of the parenting style, an
antisocial tendency during adolescence is consistently associated with worse
adjustment in young adults. Both the authoritative and indulgent parenting
styles are consistently associated with better outcomes (higher self-esteem
and psychosocial development, and lower emotional maladjustment) than the
authoritarian and neglectful parenting styles. However, there are interactions
between the parenting style and the antisocial tendency. For young adults
without an antisocial tendency, only indulgent parenting is associated with
less emotional maladjustment. These results support the idea that in Europe
the indulgent parenting style performs better than the authoritative style,
but only when raising adolescents without an antisocial tendency. For young
adults with an antisocial tendency, indulgent and authoritative parenting are
equally optimal for all the studied outcomes.

Keywords
young adults, general antisocial tendency, family socialization, parenting
styles

Introduction
Despite public authorities’ efforts to reduce young people’s tendency toward
antisocial behaviors and violence, this problem continues to be considered a
major public health issue by the World Health Organization (WHO; 1996,
2015; see also Krug, Mercy, Dahlberg, & Zwi, 2002). American and European
data suggest an unprecedented surge in the tendency toward antisocial behav-
iors and violence against socially established norms among young people.
Therefore, this epidemic not only affects violent youths and their families,
victims, and peers but it also involves society as a whole (Office of the Surgeon
General, 2001). Researchers currently study children with antisocial tenden-
cies in contexts such as the school (bullying, E. M. Lund & Ross, 2016; cyber-
bullying, Garaigordobil, 2017; Larrañaga, Yubero, Ovejero, & Navarro,
2016), the family (even child-to-parent aggression, Calvete, Orue, & Gámez-
Guadix, 2012), teen dating (traditional dating, Sjodin, Wallinius, Billstedt,
Hofvander, & Nilsson, 2017; cyberdating, Sánchez, Muñoz-Fernández, &
Ortega-Ruíz, 2015), and the neighborhood (Gracia, Fuentes, García, & Lila,
2012). Children’s antisocial tendency involves undercontrolled behaviors that
are manifested as aggression, disruptiveness, defiance, hyperactivity, and
impulsivity (e.g., Ackerman, Brown, & Izard, 2003; Pinquart, 2017). This ten-
dency is conceptualized in numerous studies as a pandemic that constitutes a
Garcia et al. 6119

community problem (WHO, 1996, 2015) and is associated with multiple indi-
cators of youth maladjustment, such as lack of psychosocial maturity, low
self-esteem, and aggression problems (Gracia et al., 2012; E. M. Lund & Ross,
2016; Sjodin et al., 2017). Moreover, in some severe cases, an antisocial ten-
dency can lead to psychiatric disorders and criminal behaviors (Moffitt, 1993;
Steinberg, Blatt-Eisengart, & Cauffman, 2006; Uceda-Maza & Alonso, 2017).
However, the theory of adolescence-limited antisocial behavior (for a
review, see Moffitt, 1993) argues that a large group of children are antiso-
cial only during adolescence, and even teens can mimic antisocial behavior
in ways that are normative and well-adjusted (Moffitt, Caspi, Harrington, &
Milne, 2002; Roustit et al., 2009). Reinforcing this argument, traditional
clinical studies have suggested that adolescents’ “identity crisis” and “indi-
viduation” both imply a certain degree of discomfort, disruptiveness, and
defiance for the family, but they are justified because teenagers on the path
to healthy adulthood have to free themselves from dependence on their
parents to form an identity of their own (Blos, 1967; Erikson, 1968). From
the opposite point of view, several traditional studies of community sam-
ples of adolescents drawn from schools, rather than clinics (Josselson,
Greenberger, & McConochie, 1977; Rutter, Graham, Chadwick, & Yule,
1976), argue that “while storm and stress may be the norm in families of
teenagers with depression or conduct disorder, conflict is not normative in
average families” (Steinberg, 2001, p. 4).
Parenting socialization theory explains that parents’ behaviors can contrib-
ute to the social behavior of their children or fail in the parenting socialization
process when their children manifest antisocial behavior. Research conducted
mainly in Anglo-Saxon contexts with European American samples has largely
identified authoritative parents (i.e., warm and responsive parents who pro-
vide firm control and maturity demands at the same time) as the optimal (i.e.,
normative) parenting style. Authoritative homes have consistently been asso-
ciated with a wide range of optimal outcomes in children and adolescents.
Based on an extensive set of children’s outcomes analyzed, children from
authoritative households (warm and firm) are more psychosocially competent,
more successful in school, and less prone to internalizing or externalizing
problems than their peers who have been raised in authoritarian (firm but not
warm), indulgent (warm but not firm), or neglectful (neither warm nor firm)
homes (Baumrind, 1983; Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Lamborn, Mounts,
Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Lewis, 1981; Maccoby & Martin, 1983).
Parents are still considered the main socializing agents during adolescence,
a period in which the concentration of antisocial behavior is well-documented
(Moffitt, 1993, 2018), despite the importance given to other factors, such as
peer social influences, broader social and contextual factors, cultural approval
6120 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(13-14)

of violence, or even genetic predispositions (for reviews, Moffitt, 2018; Raine,

2002). In fact, seminal cross-sectional (Lamborn et al., 1991) and longitudinal
(Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994) community stud-
ies showed a persistent pattern of association between parenting styles (author-
itative, authoritarian, indulgent, or neglectful) and four sets of adolescent
outcomes (psychosocial development, school achievement, internalized dis-
tress, and problem behavior) during adolescence. These studies showed a typi-
cal pattern of competence and adjustment that has been associated with the four
parenting styles: (a) the optimal style is the authoritative one, (b) the indulgent
and authoritarian styles fall in the middle (e.g., as a mixed option of qualities
and problems), and (c) the worst style is the neglectful one.
On one hand, in numerous studies, authoritative parenting (warmth and
strictness) is continuously found to be the optimal parenting style across a
wide range of developmental and behavioral outcomes (Hoffmann & Bahr,
2014; Lamborn et al., 1991; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Steinberg et al., 1994).
Therefore, adolescents from authoritative households tend to use illegal
drugs less (Hoffmann & Bahr, 2014; Montgomery, Fisk, & Craig, 2008), be
more resilient (Kritzas & Grobler, 2005), have higher levels of self-esteem
(Turner, Chandler, & Heffer, 2009), achieve better academic performance
(Cohen & Rice, 1997; Im-Bolter, Zadeh, & Ling, 2013), have better psycho-
logical competence (Lamborn et al., 1991; Turner et al., 2009) and more
adaptive strategies (Aunola, Stattin, & Nurmi, 2000), and be less involved in
a broad spectrum of behavior problems (e.g., school misconduct, drug use,
and delinquency; Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994). On the other
hand, neglectful parenting (neither warmth nor strictness) is constantly found
to be the worst parenting style for adolescents in terms of promoting more
harmful outputs, for instance, the tendency to use more drugs, have less resil-
ience, have more psychological maladjustment, use more ineffective adap-
tive strategies, and be involved in more problems (Aunola et al., 2000;
Hoffmann & Bahr, 2014; Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994; Turner
et al., 2009). In the middle, adolescents with authoritarian parenting score
reasonably well on obedience and conformity to norms (they do well in
school and are less likely than their peers to be involved in deviant activities,
for example, drug use or delinquency), but they have relatively worse self-
reliance and higher psychosocial and somatic distress. Adolescents from
indulgent homes show a strong sense of self-confidence, but they report a
higher frequency of substance abuse and school misconduct and are less
engaged in school (see Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994).
Optimal authoritative parenting consists of parental strictness (also referred
to as demandingness, imposition, and parental firmness) to correct and punish
children’s maladaptive behavior, along with the firm aim of achieving their
Garcia et al. 6121

children’s adjustment and full compliance with the social rules. However,
authoritative parenting also involves parental warmth (also referred to as
responsiveness, acceptance, and involvement) to reinforce parental support
and help children to reach conformity and compliance with the social norms.
Hence, for children with highly responsive parents, this context will include
parental warmth and acceptance of the child, as well as an emphasis on aspects
such as reciprocity (rather than mere compliance), psychological autonomy
(rather than mere conformism), and rational discourse (rather than coercion
and intimidation). In most cases, discipline will be nonpunitive and accompa-
nied by clear explanations and reasoning (e.g., Baumrind, 1971; Grusec,
Danyliuk, Kil, & O’Neill, 2017; Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994).
Dual elements of warmth and strictness are crucial for optimal authoritative
parenting—with the former (warmth) referring to parental involvement and
responsiveness to support and reinforce the developing child’s individuality,
whereas the latter (strictness) is related to parental imposition and demanding-
ness in an attempt to make the child conform to societal and family expecta-
tions. Thus, parenting socialization theory claims that the practices of parents
who are warm and involved (i.e., authoritative and indulgent) have a different
meaning from the same practices administered by parents who are cold and
uninvolved (i.e., authoritarian and neglectful; Darling & Steinberg, 1993; F.
García & Gracia, 2009, 2014; Martínez, Cruise, García, & Murgui, 2017). The
parenting styles framework captures overall long-term parenting characteris-
tics that integrate and organize particular or specific parenting practices and
accurately establish the relations among parenting styles, parenting practices,
and their associations with children’s short- and long-term adjustment or mal-
adjustment (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; F. García & Gracia, 2009, 2014;
Lamborn et al., 1991; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Symonds, 1939).
However, there are doubts about whether the acceptance and involvement
component of authoritative parents (shared by authoritative and indulgent styles)
is always necessary for an optimal parenting style (e.g., Clark, Yang, McClernon,
& Fuemmeler, 2015). Literature on parenting also supports the authoritarian
parenting style (strictness, but no warmth) as an appropriate parental strategy
(i.e., normative parenting style) in needy ethnic minority families and dangerous
communities, where authoritarian parenting may not be as harmful and may
even have some protective benefits (Furstenberg, Cook, Eccles, Elder, &
Sameroff, 1999). Earlier studies in the United States with ethnic minority
groups, such as African Americans (Baumrind, 1972; Deater-Deckard & Dodge,
1997; Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1996), Chinese Americans
(Chao, 1994; Wang & Phinney, 1998), Hispanic Americans (Torres-Villa, 1995;
Zayas & Solari, 1994), or multiethnic Americans (Steinberg, Dornbusch, &
Brown, 1992), suggest that the authoritarian parenting style is an appropriate
6122 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(13-14)

parental strategy. Steinberg et al. (2006), sampling severe juvenile offenders,

conclude that “it is not that authoritarian parenting is good for poor, urban, eth-
nic minority adolescents, but, rather, that authoritarian parenting may not be as
bad for these adolescents as it has been shown to be for their middle-class, sub-
urban, white counterparts” (p. 56).
Furthermore, previous findings examining how antisocial youth might
have better or worse outcomes depending on different parenting styles through
parenting intervention programs for children with antisocial behaviors suggest
that parental practices could improve or exacerbate children’s antisocial
behavior (Buchanan-Pascall, Gray, Gordon, & Melvin, 2018). Nevertheless,
most of these studies stem from clinical studies, rather than from community
samples, and they do not offer clear evidence. On one hand, warm, affective,
responsive, and inductive parenting (shared by indulgent and authoritative
parenting styles) tends to improve prosocial behaviors in antisocial children
(Pinquart & Kauser, 2018). However, other studies have suggested that paren-
tal involvement (i.e., warm, affective, responsive, and inductive) could under-
mine children’s social adjustment in antisocial children, exacerbating both
externalizing and internalizing problems (Ruiz-Ortiz, Braza, Carreras, &
Muñoz, 2017). On the other hand, authoritarian parenting characterized by
harsh parenting has been associated with more antisocial behavior in children
(Martínez, Murgui, Garcia, & Garcia, 2019; Tung & Lee, 2018), although
other findings have suggested that a lack of strictness and imposition could be
associated with antisocial behavior (Furstenberg et al., 1999).
In addition, the indulgent parenting style, characterized by warmth but not
strictness, also provides ample benefits for children’s well-being (i.e., norma-
tive parenting style) in European and Latin American countries (DiMaggio &
Zappulla, 2014; F. García et al., 2015; F. García & Gracia, 2009, 2010; O. F.
Garcia, Serra, Zacares, & Garcia, 2018; Gracia et al., 2012; Martínez et al.,
2017; Valente, Cogo-Moreira, & Sanchez, 2017; Wolfradt, Hempel, & Miles,
2003). For Spanish adolescents, the indulgent parenting style appears to be a
main protective factor against alcohol and drug use and as useful as the author-
itative parenting style (Calafat, García, Juan, Becoña, & Fernández-Hermida,
2014; Fuentes, Alarcón, García, & Gracia, 2015; F. García & Gracia, 2009,
2010; Martínez, Fuentes, García, & Madrid, 2013). In fact, the indulgent par-
enting style provides better results than the authoritative style on criteria such
as self-esteem, values internalization, psychological maladjustment, personal
competence, and a broad spectrum of behavioral problems (Fuentes, Alarcón,
et al., 2015; Fuentes, García, Gracia, & Alarcón, 2015; Garaigordobil & Aliri,
2012; Martínez & García, 2007; Riquelme, Garcia, & Serra, 2018). For exam-
ple, a critical community study with Spanish adolescents (F. García & Gracia,
2009) that analyzed 17 outcomes (related to multidimensional self-esteem,
Garcia et al. 6123

psychosocial maladjustment, personal competence, and problem behaviors)

showed that (a) adolescents from indulgent and authoritative parenting styles
were associated with better outcomes than those with authoritarian and
neglectful parenting and (b) indulgent parenting was always equal to or better
than the authoritative style. These findings reinforce the influence of culture
on the relation between parental socialization and psychological adjustment
(Baumrind, 1972; Chao, 1994; Darling & Steinberg, 1993; F. García & Gracia,
2009, 2014; Steinberg et al., 1992). In addition, the concepts of collectivism
(emphasizing one’s interdependence) versus individualism (valuing personal
independence), and vertical (emphasizing hierarchy) versus horizontal (valu-
ing equality) cultural backgrounds have traditionally been called upon to
explain observed differences in the association between parenting styles and
youth outcomes (e.g., Rudy & Grusec, 2001; Triandis, 2001; White & Schnurr,
2012). Researchers have suggested that in European cultures (e.g., Spain),
considered to be horizontal and collectivistic, the relationship between parents
and their children is more egalitarian than in Anglo-Saxon countries (individu-
alistic culture) or Asian or Arabic countries (vertical collectivist culture).
European children could perceive parental strictness, punishment, and imposi-
tion as meddling and coercive rather than as parental care and responsibility
(Calafat et al., 2014; Chao, 1994; F. García & Gracia, 2009; Martínez &
García, 2007; White & Schnurr, 2012).
It is widely assumed in the literature that children with an antisocial ten-
dency have the poorest psychological competence and consistently worse
adjustment on several outcomes (Gracia et al., 2012; E. M. Lund & Ross,
2016; Sjodin et al., 2017), and public authorities have conceptualized this
tendency as a pandemic that constitutes a community problem (e.g., WHO,
1996, 2015). However, studies have commonly analyzed adolescents’ antiso-
cial tendency as one more outcome of the parenting style (Garaigordobil &
Aliri, 2012; Garcia & Gracia, 2010; Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al.,
1994), but not as a factual pandemic risk factor that can undermine the psy-
chosocial health of teenagers on the path to healthy adulthood (Blos, 1967;
Erikson, 1968). As adolescence-limited antisocial behavior theory suggests
(Moffitt, 1993), a large number of children are antisocial only during adoles-
cence, which casts doubt on whether this large group with an antisocial ten-
dency will have any future psychosocial health handicaps, or whether they
are only manifesting an adolescent normative antisocial behavior of “storm
and stress” (F. García & Gracia, 2009; Rutter et al., 1976; Steinberg, 2001).
This study examines the long-term effects of parenting socialization
beyond adolescence in children with an antisocial tendency (Krug et al.,
2002; WHO, 1996, 2015). Based on the literature review, we hypothesize,
first, that youths with an antisocial tendency will be associated with the worst
6124 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(13-14)

adjustment. Based on public authorities and current research, children with

an antisocial tendency have the poorest psychological competence and con-
sistently worse adjustment. Second, indulgent and authoritative parenting
styles will be associated with better outcomes in children than authoritarian
and neglectful parenting styles. Based on the literature in Europe (e.g., Spain),
the parental warmth shared by indulgent and authoritative parenting styles
will be related to advantaged children (i.e., psychological competence and
adjustment), and a lack of parental warmth, shared by the authoritarian and
neglectful parenting styles, will be related to disadvantaged children (i.e.,
psychological incompetence and maladjustment). Third, the indulgent par-
enting style will be associated with better child adjustment compared with
authoritative, neglectful, and authoritarian parenting styles. Accordingly, as
literature in Europe (e.g., Spain) shows, of the two parenting styles that share
warmth and involvement, the indulgent parenting style (warmth but not
strictness) will be more related to better advantaged children than the authori-
tative parenting style (warmth and strictness).

Method
Participants and Procedure
The study was carried out at a large university in southeastern Spain. Participants
were 489 young adults (298 female and 191 male; mean age = 23.09 years,
SD = 4.58; range = 18-34) recruited in undergraduate education courses
(Manzeske & Stright, 2009; Parish & McCluskey, 1992). The research protocol
was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Program for the
Promotion of Scientific Research, Technological Development and Innovation
of the Spanish Valencian Region, which funded this research. All the young
adults who participated in this study (a) were Spanish, as were their parents and
four grandparents; (b) reported no official contact with the police as a juvenile
(until the age of 18) or an arrest as an adult (at the age of 18 or more); (c) partici-
pated voluntarily; and (d) received some course credit for participating. Data
were collected by using an online survey with mandatory responses hosted on
the University website. As data protection measures, (a) identifiers (e.g., univer-
sity account) and survey data were saved in separate files and (b) directory pass-
words were protected, and sensitive files were encrypted. During a regular class
period, participants completed information about the purpose of the study and
signed a declaration of consent. Participants who did not complete the online
survey on time (1 week) were removed from the sample (1.2%, n = 6). The
questionnaires were examined for questionable response patterns, such as
reporting implausible inconsistencies between negatively and positively worded
Garcia et al. 6125

responses (J. F. García, Musitu, Riquelme, & Riquelme, 2011; Tomas & Oliver,
1999, 2004). About 3% (n = 15) of the cases were identified as questionable and
removed from the sample. With the study sample of 489 participants, sensitivity
power analysis guaranteed the detection of a medium-small effect size of 0.188
(four parenting style groups; f = 0.188, α = .05, 1 − β = .95; Calafat et al., 2014;
Erdfelder, Faul, & Buchner, 1996; F. García & Gracia, 2014; Gracia, García, &
Musitu, 1995; Pérez, Navarro, & Llobell, 1999).

Measures
Parenting styles.  Parental warmth was measured with the 20-item Warmth/
Affection Scale (WAS, Ali, Khaleque, & Rohner, 2015; Rohner, Saavedra, &
Granum, 1978), which offered a reliable measure of the extent to which the
young adults had perceived their parents as loving, responsive, and involved
during their adolescence. Two sample items are as follows: “Let me know
they loved me” and “Talked to me about our plans and listened to what I had
to say.” Parental strictness was measured with the 13-item Parental Control
Scale (PCS, Rohner & Khaleque, 2003, 2005), which offered a reliable mea-
sure of the extent to which the young adults had perceived strict parental
control over their behavior during their adolescence. Two sample items are as
follows: “Told me exactly what time I had to be home when I went out” and
“Gave me certain jobs to do and would not let me do anything else until I was
done.” Because all the statements were about participants’ adolescent years,
we included the following sentence in the instructions: “Here are some
phrases or statements that describe how parents act with their children (ado-
lescent). Compare each statement to the way your parents treated you” (Buri,
1991; Hammond, Landry, Swank, & Smith, 2000; Kuyumcu & Rohner,
2018). Each item on both scales was answered on a 5-point scale ranging
from 1 (no, never) to 5 (yes, always). Both parenting indexes measured fam-
ily parenting behavior (see Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994), so
that higher scores represent a greater sense of parental warmth and parental
strictness (F. García et al., 2015; F. García & Gracia, 2014). Cronbach’s
alpha for each scale was as follows: parental warmth, .945, and parental
strictness, .888. Following the procedure of Lamborn and colleagues (1991)
and Steinberg (2005), four parenting styles (authoritative, indulgent, authori-
tarian, and neglectful) were established by the median split (50th percentile)
in each family dimension (warmth and strictness), and then both variables
were examined together. Authoritative families scored above the 50th per-
centile on both warmth and strictness, whereas neglectful families were
below the 50th percentile on both variables. Authoritarian families scored
below the 50th percentile on warmth and above the 50th percentile on
6126 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(13-14)

strictness, whereas indulgent families scored above the 50th percentile on

warmth, but below the 50th percentile on strictness (Chao, 2001; Gracia
et al., 2012; Musitu & Garcia, 2001).
Antisocial tendency was measured with the 13-item Youth Deviance Scale
(Gold, 1970; Herrenkohl et al., 2000; Spanish Adaptation: F. García & Gracia,
2010), which evaluates acts ranging from mischief at school to severe harm
or threats of harm to other people (F. García & Gracia, 2009; Lamborn et al.,
1991; Steinberg et al., 1994). Two sample items are as follows: “Painting or
damaging the walls of the school/institute” and “Attacking or hitting strang-
ers.” Because all the statements were about the participants’ years in high
school, we included the following sentence in the instructions: “Listed below
are behaviors that could be performed by adolescent students. Please read
each statement and decide to what extent it describes your case during ado-
lescence” (Collette, Pakzad, & Bergheul, 2015; Kennedy, Bybee, Palma-
Ramirez, & Jacobs, 2017; Rebellon & Straus, 2017). Participants responded
on a 3-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 3 (two or more times). Higher
scores represent a greater antisocial tendency. Cronbach’s alpha value was
.750. Young adults were grouped by the median split (50th percentile) into a
low or high antisocial tendency (Petee & Walsh, 1987).

Self-esteem.  Academic and family self-esteem were measured with two 6-item
subscales from the Multidimensional Self-Esteem Scale (AF5; F. García, Gra-
cia, & Zeleznova, 2013; F. García & Musitu, 1999; J. F. García et al., 2011; J. F.
García, Musitu, & Veiga, 2006). A sample item for academic self-esteem is: “I
am a hard worker [good student]”; and a sample item for family self-esteem is:
“My family would help me with any type of problem.” Young adults responded
on a 99-point scale, ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 99 (strong agree-
ment). Modifications were made to obtain a score index ranging from 0.10 to
9.99. Higher scores represent a greater sense of self-esteem. Cronbach’s alpha
for each subscale was as follows: Academic, .885, and Family, .848.
Psychosocial development was measured with the Self-Competence
and Empathy subscales of the Psychosocial Maturity Questionnaire
(CRPM3; Zacarés, Serra, & Torres, 2015; see Greenberger, Josselson,
Knerr, & Knerr, 1974; Lamborn et al., 1991). Self-competence was mea-
sured with 12 items. Two sample items are as follows: “I consider myself
to be effective in my work” and “I have confidence and trust in myself.”
Empathy was measured with five items. Two sample items are as follows:
“I am sensitive to others’ feelings and needs” and “I know how to listen to
other people.” On both scales, young adults responded on a 5-point scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores on
self-competence and empathy indicate a greater sense of psychosocial
Garcia et al. 6127

development. Cronbach’s alpha value for each subscale was as follows:

Self-Competence, .846, and Empathy, .629.
Emotional maladjustment was measured with the Nervousness and
Hostility subscales. Nervousness was assessed with eight items from the
Psychosocial Maturity Questionnaire (CRPM3; Greenberger et al., 1974;
Zacarés et al., 2015). Two sample items are as follows: “I am usually tense,
nervous and anxious” and “I get irritated easily.” Young adults responded on
a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Higher scores on nervousness represent greater emotional maladjustment.
Cronbach’s alpha value was .794. Hostility was assessed with the six items
from the Personality Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ; Ali et al., 2015; F.
García & Gracia, 2009, 2010; Rohner, 1978). Two sample items are as fol-
lows: “I think about fighting or being mean” and “I get so mad I throw or
break things.” The young adults responded on a 4-point scale ranging from 1
(almost never true) to 4 (almost always true). Higher scores on hostility rep-
resent greater emotional maladjustment. Cronbach’s alpha value was .673.

Plan of Analysis
The relation between the parenting style and the antisocial tendency and the
young adults’ adjustment was examined in a four-way multifactorial multi-
variate analysis of variance (MANOVA). In addition, to analyze these rela-
tions, we also take into account two demographic variables (sex and age) that
have been identified in the literature as relevant in understanding associations
between an antisocial tendency, parenting, and outcomes. We will use these
variables as independent variables (i.e., factors), rather than as statistical con-
trols, to (a) test for any possible moderation (i.e., interaction) and (b) analyze
whether well-documented effects of demographic factors on the dependent
variables (i.e., outcomes or criterion variables) are as expected. All these
design factors control (decrease) residual variance and increase the multivari-
ate Λ-test and univariate F-test power (see Gracia, García, & Lila, 2011;
Maxwell & Delaney, 2004). A factorial (4 × 2 × 2 × 2) MANOVA was applied
for the six outcome variables: (a) academic and (b) family self-esteem out-
comes; (c) self-competence and (d) empathy psychosocial development out-
comes; and (e) nervousness and (f) hostility emotional maladjustment
outcomes. The four factors were parenting style (authoritative, authoritarian,
indulgent, and neglectful), the antisocial tendency (low vs. high), sex (men
vs. women), and age (18-24 vs. 25-34). Follow-up univariate F-tests were
performed for all the sources of variation when we found multivariate statisti-
cally significant differences. Univariate significant results were followed by
post hoc Bonferroni comparisons among all the possible pairs of means (F.
6128 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(13-14)

Table 1.  Numbers of Cases in Parenting Style Groups, Mean Scores, and Standard
Deviations on Main Measures of Parental Dimensions.

Total Indulgent Authoritative Authoritarian Neglectful

Frequency 489 136 107 129 117
Percent 100 27.8 21.9 26.4 23.9
Warmth
  M 66.05 74.84 74.10 57.37 58.05
  SD 11.33 3.87 3.53 9.77 10.35
Strictness
  M 32.94 27.92 37.81 40.40 26.09
  SD 8.03 4.94 4.59 5.58 5.34

García & Gracia, 2009; Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994; Veiga,
Garcia, Reeve, Wentzel, & Garcia, 2015).

Results
Parenting Style Groups
Young adults were classified into one of the four parenting groups (indul-
gent, authoritative, authoritarian, or neglectful; Table 1). The indulgent
group contained 136 (27.8%) young adults, with high warmth, M = 74.84,
SD = 3.87, but low strictness, M = 27.92, SD = 4.94; the authoritative
group contained 107 (21.9%), with high warmth, M = 74.10, SD = 3.53,
and high strictness, M = 37.81, SD = 4.59; the authoritarian group con-
tained 129 (26.4%), with low warmth, M = 57.37, SD = 9.77, and high
strictness, M = 40.40, SD = 5.58; and the neglectful group contained 117
(23.9%), with low warmth, M = 58.05, SD = 10.35, and low strictness,
M = 26.09, SD = 5.34. Additional analyses also showed that the two paren-
tal dimensions, warmth and strictness, consistent with the orthogonality
assumption, were modestly intercorrelated, r = –.129, R2 = .017, less than
2%, p < .005; the distributions of families by parenting style categories
were homogeneous, χ2(3) = 4.05, p = .256; and the parenting style × sex
interaction was not statistically significant, χ2(3) = .59, p = .898.

Multivariate Analyses
The MANOVA analysis yielded statistically significant interaction effects
between the parenting style and the antisocial tendency, Λ = .937, F(18, 1278.9)
= 1.65, p < .05, and main effects of parenting, Λ = .729, F(18, 1278.9) = 8.38,
Garcia et al. 6129

Table 2.  MANOVA Factorial (4a × 2b × 2c × 2d) for Outcomes Measures (Self-
Esteem, Psychosocial Development, and Emotional Maladjustment).

Source of Variation Λ F glbetween glerror p

(A) Parenting Stylea .729 8.38 18 1,278.9 <.001
(B) Antisocial Tendencyb .943 4.52 6 452.0 <.001
(C) Sexc .916 6.89 6 452.0 <.001
(D) Aged .953 3.68 6 452.0 .001
A×B .937 1.65 18 1,278.9 .042
A×C .971 0.75 18 1,278.9 .762
A×D .977 0.58 18 1,278.9 .919
B×C .982 1.39 6 452.0 .216
B×D .989 0.84 6 452.0 .543
C×D .988 0.94 6 452.0 .467
A×B×C .958 1.09 18 1,278.9 .352
A×B×D .960 1.05 18 1,278.9 .404
A×C×D .978 0.55 18 1,278.9 .932
B×C×D .991 0.63 6 452.0 .704
A×B×C×D .956 0.88 18 1,278.9 .600

Note. MANOVA = multivariate analysis of variance.

aa , authoritative; a , indulgent; a , authoritarian; a , neglectful.
1 2 3 4
bb , low; b , high.
1 2
cc , females; c , males.
1 2
dd , young adults from 18 to 24 years; d , young adults from 25 to 34 years.
1 2

p < .001; antisocial tendency, Λ = .943, F(6, 452.0) = 4.52, p < .001; sex, Λ =
.916, F(6, 452.0) = 6.89, p < .001; and age, Λ = .953, F(6, 452.0) = 3.68, p =
.001 (Table 2).

Univariate analyses for parenting and antisocial tendency effects.  In the case of
self-esteem, in both the academic and family dimensions, the results con-
firmed the first hypothesis: Young adults with an antisocial tendency have less
academic and family self-esteem than non-antisocial youths (see Table 3).
Regarding the second hypothesis, young adults from indulgent and authorita-
tive families reported higher academic and family self-esteem than their peers
from authoritarian and neglectful homes.
In the case of psychosocial development, on both self-competence and
empathy, the results confirmed the first hypothesis: antisocial young adults
showed less self-competence and empathy than non-antisocial youths.
Regarding the second hypothesis, young adults who characterized their par-
ents as indulgent and authoritative had higher self-competence and empathy
scores than those from authoritarian and neglectful homes.
6130
Table 3.  Means (Standard Deviations) of Parenting Style, Antisocial Tendency, and Sex, and Main Univariate F Values for
Outcomes Measures (Self-Esteem, Psychosocial Development, and Emotional Maladjustment).
Parenting Style Antisocial Tendency Sex Age

18-24 25-34
  Authoritative Indulgent Authoritarian Neglectful F(3, 457) Low High F(1, 457) Female Male F(1, 457) Years Years F(1, 457)

Self-esteem
 Academic 7.621 7.661 6.912 6.872 7.04*** 7.48 7.01 8.53** 7.44 6.98 2.66 7.48 7.01 14.20***
(1.32) (1.24) (1.60) (1.65) (1.41) (1.57) (1.37) (1.65) (1.41) (1.57)  
 Family 8.621 8.911 6.872 7.242 39.64*** 8.16 7.62 5.28* 8.11 7.59 5.91** 8.16 7.62 2.93
(1.04) (0.92) (1.77) (1.69) (1.56) (1.73) (1.56) (1.76) (1.56) (1.73)  
Psychosocial development
 Self-competence 4.011 3.991 3.572 3.602 15.50*** 3.86 3.70 9.50** 3.81 3.76 0.53 3.86 3.70 9.37**
(0.46) (0.47) (0.56) (0.55) (0.57) (0.52) (0.57) (0.53) (0.57) (0.52)  
 Empathy 4.151 4.171 3.922 3.892 7.35*** 4.14 3.91 9.43** 4.14 3.87 16.77*** 4.14 3.91 1.28
(0.50) (0.44) (0.53) (0.54) (0.50) (0.51) (0.49) (0.53) (0.50) (0.51)  
Emotional maladjustment
 Nervousness 2.362 2.013 2.711 2.572 11.21*** 2.37 2.53 5.37* 2.48 2.39 2.72 2.37 2.53 5.67*
(0.59) (0.69) (0.64) (0.62) (0.70) (0.64) (0.69) (0.65) (0.70) (0.64)  
 Hostility 1.841 1.642 1.951 1.961 6.46*** 1.74 1.96 13.34*** 1.80 1.91 2.67 1.74 1.96 7.22***
(0.47) (0.44) (0.56) (0.47) (0.47) (0.52) (0.47) (0.54) (0.47) (0.52)  

Note. Bonferroni test α = .05; 1 > 2 > 3. Significant level test on Bonferroni post hoc test comparison was indicated by α = .05. Superscripts "1, 2, and 3" indicated that
mean with superscript 1 is higher than mean with superscript 2; and mean with superscript 2 is higher than mean with superscript 3.
*p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001.
Garcia et al. 6131

2,8
Nervousness 2,74
2,7 Antisocial Tendency
2,68
2,6 2,67
2,47 Low
2,5

High
2,4 2,40
2,35
2,3 2,32

2,2

2,1

2,02
2,0
Neglectful Indulgent Authoritarian Authoritative

Parenting Style

Figure 1.  Means of nervousness emotional maladjustment, combining parenting

style groups with antisocial tendency conditions.

For emotional maladjustment, the results confirmed the first hypothesis: anti-
social young adults reported higher nervousness and hostility scores than non-
antisocial young adults. On nervousness emotional maladjustment, supporting
the third hypothesis, young adults from indulgent families had the lowest ner-
vousness scores. The highest scores corresponded to those from authoritarian
families, and in the middle position were young adults from authoritative and
neglectful households. In addition, we found interaction effects of parenting
style × antisocial tendency, F(3, 457) = 2.877, p = .036 (see Figure 1).
Interestingly, the results confirmed the third hypothesis only for non-antisocial
young adults, whereas for antisocial young adults, the results confirmed the sec-
ond hypothesis. Hence, raising non-antisocial children in indulgent families is
associated with the lowest scores on nervousness.
On hostility emotional maladjustment, as in the third hypothesis, young
adults who characterized their parents as indulgent reported the lowest hostil-
ity scores. By contrast, young adults from authoritative, authoritarian, and
neglectful families had the highest hostility scores. Furthermore, we found an
interaction effect between the parenting style and the antisocial tendency,
F(3, 457) = 3.172, p = .007 (see Figure 2). Once again, the third hypothesis
was only confirmed for non-antisocial young adults, whereas for antisocial
young adults, the results confirmed the second hypothesis. Therefore, raising
non-antisocial children in indulgent families is associated with optimal scores
on hostility.
6132 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(13-14)

2,2
Hoslity Antisocial Tendency
2,1

2,03
2,0
2,06 Low

1,9
1,85 1,86
1,85 High
1,87
1,8 1,84

1,7

1,6

1,51
1,5

1,4
Neglectful Indulgent Authoritarian Authoritative

Parenting Style

Figure 2.  Means of hostility emotional maladjustment, combining parenting style

groups with antisocial tendency conditions.

Main Effects of Sex and Age

Although not central to the proposals of this study, several univariate main
effects for sex and age reached significance (see Table 3). For self-esteem, the
analyses indicated that family self-esteem scores were higher among girls, and
the academic self-esteem score was higher for young adults from 18 to 24
years old. In the case of psychosocial development, girls reported more empa-
thy than boys, and self-competence was higher for the young adults from 18
to 24 years old. Regarding emotional maladjustment, nervousness and hostil-
ity scores were lower for the young adults from 18 to 24 years old.

Discussion
This article analyzes the patterns of competence and adjustment in a com-
munity sample of Spanish young adults with an antisocial tendency during
adolescence from indulgent, authoritative, authoritarian, and neglectful fami-
lies. The competence and adjustment of the young adults were captured
through self-esteem (academic and family), psychosocial development (self-
competence and empathy), and emotional maladjustment (nervousness and
hostility). Results of this study confirmed that an indulgent parenting style
was associated with optimal overall outcomes.
Garcia et al. 6133

Analyzing the main effects, youths with an antisocial tendency were asso-
ciated with the worst outcomes: less self-esteem and psychosocial develop-
ment and greater emotional maladjustment. In the same negative direction,
the neglectful parenting style (neither warmth nor strictness) and the authori-
tarian parenting style (strictness but not warmth) were associated with the
worst outcomes. Interestingly, the results of this study show that, for young
adults with an antisocial tendency, both the indulgent (warmth but not strict-
ness) and authoritative (warmth and strictness) parenting styles are equally
optimal. However, we found that, only for young adults without an antisocial
tendency, those who characterize their families as indulgent are associated
with the lowest scores on nervousness and hostility. Regardless of the antiso-
cial tendency of the young adults, those who characterized their parents as
indulgent or authoritative when they were adolescents showed no differences
in academic and family self-esteem, self-competence, or empathy.
One of the most distinguishable findings of the present study is that for
young adults with an antisocial tendency, the indulgent and authoritative par-
enting styles are equally optimal. This result contrasts with other studies sug-
gesting that the strictness and firm control component (shared by authoritative
and authoritarian parenting styles) seems to be perceived negatively in
Southern European and Latin American countries (F. García & Gracia, 2009,
2010, 2014; Martínez & García, 2007, 2008; White & Schnurr, 2012), which
are culturally more similar to Spanish culture. On the contrary, but only for
young adults without an antisocial tendency, our study extends results from
previous studies to young adulthood. Once more, children from indulgent
families obtained similar or even better scores on overall outcomes than chil-
dren from authoritative families. In addition, young adults who defined their
parents as authoritarian or neglectful when they were adolescents accom-
plished the worst ratings overall on all the outcomes analyzed (Calafat et al.,
2014; DiMaggio & Zappulla, 2014; F. García et al., 2015; F. García & Gracia,
2009, 2010, 2014; O. F. Garcia et al., 2018; Martínez et al., 2017; Martínez
et al., 2019; Musitu & García, 2001, 2004).
Findings from this study have significant implications in today’s society,
where youth violence has been declared a major public health issue by the
WHO (Krug et al., 2002; WHO, 1996, 2015). In a European community sam-
ple of young university students, this study found that the antisocial tendency
of adolescents is related to their later incompetence and maladjustment in
young adulthood. It is a pandemic community problem that systematically
undermines public health, even when analyzing competence and adjustment
in university students (Ackerman et al., 2003; Moffitt, 1993; Moffitt et al.,
2002; Roustit et al., 2009; Steinberg et al., 2006). Thus, findings from this
study contradict the idea that adolescent antisocial behavior is only limited to
6134 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(13-14)

adolescence because they do not confirm the classic “storm and stress”
hypothesis (Blos, 1967; Erikson, 1968; Rutter et al., 1976; Steinberg, 2001).
Furthermore, socialization theory shows that parents’ behaviors can con-
tribute to the social behavior of their children or fail when children demon-
strate a tendency toward antisocial behavior (Baumrind, 1983; Darling &
Steinberg, 1993; Lamborn et al., 1991; Lewis, 1981; Maccoby & Martin,
1983; Moffitt, 1993; Steinberg et al., 2006). One important implication of
this study for the literature on quality parenting and children’s well-being is
that the combination of parental warmth and involvement is always a protec-
tive factor in adolescent outcomes (F. García & Gracia, 2009, 2010; Martínez
& García, 2007, 2008; White & Schnurr, 2012). However, parental warmth
and involvement with lack of strictness and imposition (i.e., indulgent style)
also seems to be a protective parenting strategy for children with an antisocial
tendency (F. García & Gracia, 2009; White & Schnurr, 2012). Unlike other
cultural contexts where strictness is a necessary and sufficient parenting strat-
egy (e.g., Clark et al., 2015; Furstenberg et al., 1999), the findings of this
study reinforce the idea that the parental warmth and involvement component
(shared by authoritative and indulgent styles), but not the parental strictness
and imposition component (shared by authoritative and authoritarian styles),
contains strategic factors that favor the offspring’s well-being (Calafat et al.,
2014; I. Lund & Scheffels, 2019; Valente et al., 2017). In fact, the findings of
this study reinforce the idea that neglectful and authoritarian parenting styles
are the worst parenting strategies in youths with or without an antisocial ten-
dency (Calafat et al., 2014; F. García & Gracia, 2009, 2014). Interestingly,
our findings contrast with previous studies on intervention programs for anti-
social children that recommend the use of strictness and imposition parenting
practices (see Furstenberg et al., 1999). Our findings indicate the benefits of
parental warmth and involvement (i.e., indulgent and authoritative styles),
even when parents are raising children with an antisocial tendency. Our
results show that young adults with an antisocial tendency from indulgent
and authoritative homes (both parental warmth and involvement) have less
nervousness and hostility than their peers from authoritarian or neglectful
families (both sharing lack of parental warmth and involvement).
In addition, results of this study agree with previous findings on the rela-
tions between the demographic variables of sex and age and competence and
adjustment. Our results confirm previous studies showing that family self-
esteem (Musitu & Garcia, 2001; Riquelme et al., 2018) and empathy (Mestre,
Samper, Frías, & Tur, 2009) are higher in young females. Overall, young
adults from 18 to 24 years old are more competent than those from 25 to 34
years old on all the outcomes examined, suggesting that university studies are
normative in early young adulthood, but not in late young adulthood.
Therefore, this greater academic competence in 18- to 24-year-old young
Garcia et al. 6135

adults is also associated with other positive indicators, such as self-compe-

tence or less emotional maladjustment (nervousness and hostility; Côté &
Schwartz, 2002; Zacarés et al., 2015). As research suggests, delaying the
obligations of early young adulthood, such as university studies or job seek-
ing, is related to personal maladjustment in late young adulthood (Côté &
Schwartz, 2002; Zacarés et al., 2015). However, this could be related to
inconsistent and rapidly changing socioeconomic conditions, along with a
range of difficulties for present-day young adults in Western societies. In the
early part of the 21st century, this generation is trying to integrate into the
labor market and acquire financial autonomy, which appears to be affecting
their progress through the personal and social achievements of adulthood
(Lopez-Fernandez, Stack, & Mitra, 2019).
Finally, this study has strengths and limitations. The use of the two-dimen-
sional four-style model to assess parenting offers an approach to the ongoing
debates by examining parenting styles in a broad context of different out-
comes across different demographic variables, settings, and countries, with
conventional and explicit hypotheses across several studies, thus contributing
to the replication and consistency of the findings. The cross-sectional design
of the present study does not determine causality, although it establishes a
link between a specific parental strategy for raising children and an antisocial
tendency and competence indicators of adjustment in young adulthood.
We should be cautious in interpreting the present findings, given its cross-
sectional design and reliance on self-report data gathered entirely from the
young adults themselves. Moreover, the data on parenting and the antisocial
tendency were collected retrospectively. We cannot exclude either causal
relations between variables or third-variable explanations, although the rela-
tive demographic similarity of the sample makes such third-variable accounts
less likely. In the absence of longitudinal or experimental data, the findings
must be viewed as preliminary. Finally, this study uses a community sample
of university students, rather than a clinical or offender sample, although the
results offer evidence that is consistent with previous research. More studies
are needed with other samples, such as nonuniversity young adults or youths
from poor neighborhoods, to extend the parenting evidence.
Despite these limitations, the findings of the present study agree with con-
ceptions from recent parenting literature on children’s antisocial tendency as
a pandemic community problem, ruling out alternative conceptions of the
normative function of antisocial behaviors during adolescence. Although
there can be adolescence-limited antisocial behavior, the larger group of
Spanish children with an antisocial tendency experience multiple indicators
of maladjustment during young adulthood. This maladjustment persists even
if they are raised according to the normative parenting for the context where
they are socialized.
6136 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(13-14)

Authors’ Note
Olatz Lopez-Fernandez is now affiliated with Monash University, Australia.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research reported in this article has
been partially supported by Grants ACIF/2016/431 and BEFPI/2017/058 (Valencian
Regional Government, and European Social Fund) and FPU16/00988 (Ministry of
Science, Innovation and Universities, Government of Spain).

ORCID iD
Oscar F. Garcia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8146-7590

References
Ackerman, B. P., Brown, E., & Izard, C. E. (2003). Continuity and change in levels
of externalizing behavior in school of children from economically disadvantaged
families. Child Development, 74, 694-709. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00563
Ali, S., Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R. P. (2015). Pancultural gender differences in the rela-
tion between perceived parental acceptance and psychological adjustment of chil-
dren and adult offspring: A meta-analytic review of worldwide research. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 1059-1080. doi:10.1177/0022022115597754
Aunola, K., Stattin, H., & Nurmi, J. E. (2000). Parenting styles and adolescents’
achievement strategies. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 205-222. doi:10.1006/jado
.2000.0308
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental
Psychology, 4(1, Pt. 2), 1-103. doi:10.1037/h0030372
Baumrind, D. (1972). An exploratory study of socialization effects on Black chil-
dren: Some Black-White comparisons. Child Development, 43, 261-267.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1972.tb01099.x
Baumrind, D. (1983). Rejoinder to Lewis’s reinterpretation of parental firm control
effects: Are authoritative families really harmonious? Psychological Bulletin, 94,
132-142. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.94.1.132
Blos, P. (1967). The second individuation process of adolescence. Psychoanalytic
Study of the Child, 22, 162-186. doi:10.1080/00797308.1967.11822595
Buchanan-Pascall, S., Gray, K. M., Gordon, M., & Melvin, G. A. (2018). Systematic
review and meta-analysis of parent group interventions for primary school chil-
dren aged 4-12 years with externalizing and/or internalizing problems. Child
Psychiatry & Human Development, 49, 244-267. doi:10.1007/s10578-017-0745-9
Garcia et al. 6137

Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 57, 110-119. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5701_13
Calafat, A., García, F., Juan, M., Becoña, E., & Fernández-Hermida, J. R. (2014).
Which parenting style is more protective against adolescent substance use?
Evidence within the European context. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 138, 185-
192. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.02.705
Calvete, E., Orue, I., & Gámez-Guadix, M. (2012). Child-to-parent violence:
Emotional and behavioral predictors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 755-
772. doi:10.1177/0886260512455869
Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style:
Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child
Development, 65, 1111-1119. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00806.x
Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for
Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72, 1832-
1843. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00381
Clark, T. T., Yang, C., McClernon, F. J., & Fuemmeler, B. F. (2015). Racial dif-
ferences in parenting style typologies and heavy episodic drinking trajectories.
Health Psychology, 34, 697-708. doi:10.1037/hea0000150
Cohen, D. A., & Rice, J. (1997). Parenting styles, adolescent substance use, and
academic achievement. Journal of Drug Education, 27, 199-211. doi:10.2190/
QPQQ-6Q1G-UF7D-5UTJ
Collette, T., Pakzad, S., & Bergheul, S. (2015). Adolescent criminal acts committed
and substance use with a voluntary sample recruited from post-secondary institu-
tions. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 59, 64-91. Retrieved from https:
//search.proquest.com/docview/1732612085
Côté, J. E., & Schwartz, S. J. (2002). Comparing psychological and sociological
approaches to identity: Identity status, identity capital, and the individualization
process. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 571-586. doi:10.1006/jado.2002.0511
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487
Deater-Deckard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Externalizing behavior problems and
discipline revisited: Nonlinear effects and variation by culture, context, and gen-
der. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 161-175. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0803_1
Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1996). Physical dis-
cipline among African American and European American mothers: Links to
children’s externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1065-1072.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.6.1065
DiMaggio, R., & Zappulla, C. (2014). Mothering, fathering, and Italian adolescents’
problem behaviors and life satisfaction: Dimensional and typological approach.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 567-580. doi:10.1007/s10826-013-
9721-6
Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis
program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 28, 1-11.
doi:10.3758/BF03203630
6138 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(13-14)

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
doi:10.1002/bs.3830140209
Fuentes, M. C., Alarcón, A., García, F., & Gracia, E. (2015). Use of alcohol, tobacco,
cannabis and other drugs in adolescence: Effects of family and neighborhood.
Anales de Psicologia, 31, 1000-1007. doi:10.6018/analesps.31.3.183491
Fuentes, M. C., García, F., Gracia, E., & Alarcón, A. (2015). Parental socialization
styles and psychological adjustment. A study in Spanish adolescents. Revista de
Psicodidactica, 20, 117-138. doi:10.1387/RevPsicodidact.10876
Furstenberg, F., Jr., Cook, T., Eccles, J., Elder, G., Jr., & Sameroff, A. (1999).
Managing to make it: Urban families and adolescent success. Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
Garaigordobil, M. (2017). Antisocial behaviour: Connection with bullying/cyberbul-
lying and conflict resolution. Psychosocial Intervention, 26, 47-54. doi:10.1016/j.
psi.2015.12.002
Garaigordobil, M., & Aliri, J. (2012). Parental socialization styles, parents’ educa-
tional level, and sexist attitudes in adolescence. Spanish Journal of Psychology,
15, 592-603. doi:10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n2.38870
García, F., Fernández-Doménech, L., Veiga, F. H., Bono, R., Serra, E., & Musitu, G.
(2015). Parenting styles and parenting practices: Analyzing current relationships
in the Spanish context. In F. Garcia (Ed.), Parenting: Cultural influences and
impact on childhood health and well-being (pp. 17-31). Hauppauge, NY: Nova
Science Publishers.
García, F., & Gracia, E. (2009). Is always authoritative the optimum parenting style?
Evidence from Spanish families. Adolescence, 44(173), 101-131. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/621909838
García, F., & Gracia, E. (2010). What is the optimum parental socialisation style
in Spain? A study with children and adolescents aged 10-14 years. Infancia y
Aprendizaje, 33, 365-384. doi:10.1174/021037010792215118
García, F., & Gracia, E. (2014). The indulgent parenting style and developmental
outcomes in South European and Latin American countries. In H. Selin (Ed.),
Science Across Cultures: History and Practice: Vol. 7. Parenting across cultures:
Childrearing, motherhood and fatherhood in non-Western cultures (pp. 419-433).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7503-9_31
García, F., Gracia, E., & Zeleznova, A. (2013). Validation of the English version of the
Five-Factor Self-Concept Questionnaire. Psicothema, 25, 549-555. doi:10.7334/
psicothema2013.33
García, F., & Musitu, G. (1999). AF5: Self-Concept Form 5. Madrid, Spain: TEA
Ediciones, S.A.
García, J. F., Musitu, G., Riquelme, E., & Riquelme, P. (2011). A confirmatory fac-
tor analysis of the “Autoconcepto Forma 5” Questionnaire in young adults from
Spain and Chile. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14, 648-658. doi:10.5209/rev_
SJOP.2011.v14.n2.13
García, J. F., Musitu, G., & Veiga, F. (2006). Self-concept in adults from Spain and
Portugal. Psicothema, 18, 551-556.
Garcia et al. 6139

Garcia, O. F., Serra, E., Zacares, J. J., & Garcia, F. (2018). Parenting styles and short-
and long-term socialization outcomes: A study among Spanish adolescents and
older adults. Psychosocial Intervention, 27, 153-161. doi:10.5093/pi2018a21
Gold, M. (1970). Delinquent behavior in an American city. Belmont, CA: Brooks/
Cole.
Gracia, E., Fuentes, M. C., García, F., & Lila, M. (2012). Perceived neighborhood vio-
lence, parenting styles, and developmental outcomes among Spanish adolescents.
Journal of Community Psychology, 40, 1004-1021. doi:10.1002/jcop.21512
Gracia, E., García, F., & Lila, M. (2011). Police attitudes toward policing partner
violence against women: Do they correspond to different psychosocial profiles?
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 189-207. doi:10.1177/0886260510362892
Gracia, E., García, F., & Musitu, G. (1995). Macrosocial determinants of social inte-
gration: Social class and area effect. Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology, 5, 105-119. doi:10.1002/casp.2450050204
Greenberger, E., Josselson, R., Knerr, C., & Knerr, B. (1974). The measurement and
structure of psychosocial maturity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 4, 127-143.
Grusec, J. E., Danyliuk, T., Kil, H., & O’Neill, D. (2017). Perspectives on parent
discipline and child outcomes. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
41, 465-471. doi:10.1177/0165025416681538
Hammond, M. V., Landry, S. H., Swank, P. R., & Smith, K. E. (2000). Relation
of mothers’ affective developmental history and parenting behavior: Effects
on infant medical risk. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70, 95-103.
doi:10.1037/h0087635
Herrenkohl, T. I., Maguin, E., Hill, K. G., Hawkins, J. D., Abbott, R. D., & Catalano,
R. F. (2000). Developmental risk factors for youth violence. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 26, 176-186.
Hoffmann, J. P., & Bahr, S. J. (2014). Parenting style, religiosity, peer alcohol use,
and adolescent heavy drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 75,
222-227. doi:10.15288/jsad.2014.75.222
Im-Bolter, N., Zadeh, Z. Y., & Ling, D. (2013). Early parenting beliefs and academic
achievement: The mediating role of language. Early Child Development and
Care, 183, 1811-1826. doi:10.1080/03004430.2012.755964
Josselson, R., Greenberger, E., & McConochie, D. (1977). Phenomenological aspects
of psychosocial maturity in adolescence. Part II. Girls. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 6, 145-167. doi:10.1007/BF02139081
Kennedy, A. C., Bybee, D., Palma-Ramirez, E., & Jacobs, D. A. (2017). Cumulative
victimization as a predictor of intimate partner violence among young mothers.
Psychology of Violence, 7, 533-542. doi:10.1037/vio0000071
Kritzas, N., & Grobler, A. A. (2005). The relationship between perceived parenting
styles and resilience during adolescence. Journal of Child & Adolescent Mental
Health, 17, 1-12. doi:10.2989/17280580509486586
Krug, E. G., Mercy, J. A., Dahlberg, L. L., & Zwi, A. B. (2002). The world report
on violence and health. The Lancet, 360, 1083-1088. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736
(02)11133-0
6140 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(13-14)

Kuyumcu, B., & Rohner, R. P. (2018). The relation between remembered paren-
tal acceptance in childhood and self-acceptance among young Turkish adults.
International Journal of Psychology, 53, 126-132. doi:10.1002/ijop.12277
Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns
of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authori-
tarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065.
doi:10.2307/1131151
Larrañaga, E., Yubero, S., Ovejero, A., & Navarro, R. (2016). Loneliness, parent-
child communication and cyberbullying victimization among Spanish youths.
Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 1-8. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.015
Lewis, C. C. (1981). The effects of parental firm control: A reinterpretation of
findings. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 547-563. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.90
.3.547
Lopez-Fernandez, O., Stack, R., & Mitra, S. (2019). Adulthood to ageing. In P.
Banyard, G. Dillon, C. Norman, & B. Winder (Eds.), Essential psychology (pp.
489-511) (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage.
Lund, E. M., & Ross, S. W. (2016). Bullying perpetration, victimization, and demo-
graphic differences in college students: A review of the literature. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse, 18, 348-360. doi:1524838015620818
Lund, I., & Scheffels, J. (2019). 15-year-old tobacco and alcohol abstainers in a drier
generation: Characteristics and lifestyle factors in a Norwegian cross-sectional
sample. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 47(4), 439-445.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family:
Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology
(Vol. 4, pp. 1-101). New York, NY: Wiley.
Manzeske, D. P., & Stright, A. D. (2009). Parenting styles and emotion regula-
tion: The role of behavioral and psychological control during young adulthood.
Journal of Adult Development, 16, 223-229. doi:10.1007/s10804-009-9068-9
Martínez, I., Cruise, E., García, Ó. F., & Murgui, S. (2017). English validation of
the Parental Socialization Scale-ESPA29. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(865), 1-10.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00865
Martínez, I., Fuentes, M. C., García, F., & Madrid, I. (2013). The parenting style as
protective or risk factor for substance use and other behavior problems among
Spanish adolescents. Adicciones, 25, 235-242. doi:10.20882/adicciones.51
Martínez, I., & García, J. F. (2007). Impact of parenting styles on adolescents’ self-
esteem and internalization of values in Spain. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10,
338-348. doi:10.1017/S1138741600006600
Martínez, I., & García, J. F. (2008). Internalization of values and self-esteem among
Brazilian teenagers from authoritative, indulgent, authoritarian, and neglectful
homes. Adolescence, 43(169), 13-29.
Martínez, I., Murgui, S., Garcia, O. F., & Garcia, F. (2019). Parenting in the digital
era: Protective and risk parenting styles for traditional bullying and cyberbul-
lying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 84-92. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2018.08.036
Garcia et al. 6141

Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data:
A model comparison perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mestre, M. V., Samper, P., Frías, M. D., & Tur, A. M. (2009). Are women more
empathetic than men? A longitudinal study in adolescence. Spanish Journal of
Psychology, 12, 76-83. doi:10.1017/S1138741600001499
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial
behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674
Moffitt, T. E. (2018). Male antisocial behaviour in adolescence and beyond. Nature
Human Behaviour, 2, 177-186. doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0309-4
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Harrington, H., & Milne, B. J. (2002). Males on the life-
course-persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways: Follow-up at
age 26 years. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 179-207. doi:10.1017/
S0954579402001104
Montgomery, C., Fisk, J. E., & Craig, L. (2008). The effects of perceived parenting
style on the propensity for illicit drug use: The importance of parental warmth
and control. Drug and Alcohol Review, 27, 640-649.
Musitu, G., & Garcia, F. (2001). ESPA29: Parental Socialization Scale in Adolescence.
Madrid, Spain: TEA Ediciones.
Musitu, G., & García, J. F. (2004). Consequences of the family socialization in the
Spanish culture. Psicothema, 16, 288-293.
Office of the Surgeon General. (2001). Youth violence: A report of the Surgeon
General (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44297/
Parish, T. S., & McCluskey, J. J. (1992). The relationship between parenting styles
and young adults’ self-concepts and evaluations of parents. Adolescence, 27(108),
915-918. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1295896593
Pérez, J. F. G., Navarro, D. F., & Llobell, J. P. (1999). Statistical power of Solomon
design. Psicothema, 11, 431-436.
Petee, T. A., & Walsh, A. (1987). Violent delinquency, race, and the Wechsler perfor-
mance-verbal discrepancy. The Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 353-354. doi:
10.1080/00224545.1987.9713705
Pinquart, M. (2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with internaliz-
ing symptoms in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Marriage & Family
Review, 53, 613-640. doi:10.1080/01494929.2016.1247761
Pinquart, M., & Kauser, R. (2018). Do the associations of parenting styles with
behavior problems and academic achievement vary by culture? Results from a
meta-analysis. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24, 75-100.
doi:10.1037/cdp0000149
Raine, A. (2002). Biosocial studies of antisocial and violent behavior in children and
adults: A review. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 311-326.
Rebellon, C. J., & Straus, M. (2017). Corporal punishment and adult antisocial behav-
ior: A comparison of dyadic concordance types and an evaluation of mediat-
ing mechanisms in Asia, Europe, and North America. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 41, 503-513. doi:10.1177/0165025417708342
6142 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(13-14)

Riquelme, M., Garcia, O. F., & Serra, E. (2018). Psychosocial maladjustment in ado-
lescence: Parenting styles, self-esteem and substance use. Anales de Psicologia,
34, 536-544. doi:10.6018/analesps.34.3.315201
Rohner, R. P. (1978). Development and validation of the Personality Assessment
Questionnaire: Test manual. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rohner, R. P., & Khaleque, A. (2003). Reliability and validity of the Parental Control
Scale: A meta-analysis of cross-cultural and intracultural studies. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 643-649.
Rohner, R. P., & Khaleque, A. (2005). Handbook for the study of parental acceptance
and rejection (4th ed.). Storrs, CT: Rohner Research Publications.
Rohner, R. P., Saavedra, J., & Granum, E. O. (1978). Development and validation of
the Parental Acceptance Rejection Questionnaire: Test manual. JSAS: Catalogue
of Selected Documents in Psychology, 8, 7-8.
Roustit, C., Renahy, E., Guernec, G., Lesieur, S., Parizot, I., & Chauvin, P. (2009).
Exposure to interparental violence and psychosocial maladjustment in the
adult life course: Advocacy for early prevention. Journal of Epidemiology &
Community Health, 63, 563-568. doi:10.1136/jech.2008.077750
Rudy, D., & Grusec, J. E. (2001). Correlates of authoritarian parenting in individu-
alist and collectivist cultures and implications for understanding the transmis-
sion of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 202-212. doi:10.1177
/0022022101032002007
Ruiz-Ortiz, R., Braza, P., Carreras, R., & Muñoz, J. M. (2017). Differential effects of
mother’s and father’s parenting on prosocial and antisocial behavior: Child sex
moderating. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 2182-2190. doi:10.1007/
s10826-017-0726-4
Rutter, M., Graham, P., Chadwick, F., & Yule, W. (1976). Adolescent turmoil:
Fact or fiction? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 35-56.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00372.x
Sánchez, V., Muñoz-Fernández, N., & Ortega-Ruíz, R. (2015). “Cyberdating Q_A”:
An instrument to assess the quality of adolescent dating relationships in social net-
works. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 78-86. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.006
Sjodin, A. K., Wallinius, M., Billstedt, E., Hofvander, B., & Nilsson, T. (2017).
Dating violence compared to other types of violence: Similar offenders but dif-
ferent victims. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 9,
83-91. doi:10.1016/j.ejpal.2017.03.001
Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent-adolescent relationships in ret-
rospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 1-19. doi:10
.1111/1532-7795.00001
Steinberg, L. (2005). Psychological control: Style or substance? In J. G. Smetana
(Ed.), New directions for child and adolescent development: Changes in parental
authority during adolescence (pp. 71-78). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Steinberg, L., Blatt-Eisengart, I., & Cauffman, E. (2006). Patterns of competence and
adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and
neglectful homes: A replication in a sample of serious juvenile offenders. Journal
of Research on Adolescence, 16, 47-58. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00119.x
Garcia et al. 6143

Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic-differences in ado-

lescent achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723-
729. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.47.6.723
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994).
Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authori-
tative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754-
770. doi:10.2307/1131416
Symonds, P. M. (1939). The psychology of parent-child relationships. New York,
NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Tomas, J. M., & Oliver, A. (1999). Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale: Two factors or method
effects. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 84-98. doi:10.1080/10705519909540120
Tomas, J. M., & Oliver, A. (2004). Confirmatory factor analysis of a Spanish mul-
tidimensional scale of self-concept. Revista Interamericana de Psicologia, 38,
285-293.
Torres-Villa, M. S. (1995). Parenting styles, language and parents’ education as pre-
dictors of school achievement for Hispanic students (Unpublished Doctoral dis-
sertation). Georgia State University, Atlanta.
Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of
Personality, 69, 907-924. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.696169
Tung, I., & Lee, S. S. (2018). Context-specific associations between harsh parenting
and peer rejection on child conduct problems at home and school. Journal of
Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 47, 642-654. doi:10.1080/15374416.
2015.1102071
Turner, E. A., Chandler, M., & Heffer, R. W. (2009). The influence of parenting
styles, achievement motivation, and self-efficacy on academic performance in
college students. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 337-346. doi:10.1
080/15374416.2015.1102071
Uceda-Maza, F. X., & Alonso, J. D. (2017). The link between vulnerability and
social exclusion and criminal trajectories. An association study. Psychosocial
Intervention, 26, 29-37. doi:10.1016/j.psi.2016.07.002
Valente, J. Y., Cogo-Moreira, H., & Sanchez, Z. M. (2017). Gradient of associa-
tion between parenting styles and patterns of drug use in adolescence: A latent
class analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 180, 272-278. doi:10.1016/j.dru-
galcdep.2017.08.015
Veiga, F. H., Garcia, F., Reeve, J., Wentzel, K., & Garcia, O. (2015). When ado-
lescents with high self-concept lose their engagement in school. Revista de
Psicodidactica, 20, 305-320. doi:10.1387/RevPsicodidact.12671
Wang, C. H. C., & Phinney, J. S. (1998). Differences in child rearing attitudes between
immigrant Chinese mothers and Anglo-American mothers. Early Development
and Parenting, 7, 181-189. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0917(199812)7:4<181::AID-
EDP169>3.3.CO;2-P
White, J., & Schnurr, M. P. (2012). Developmental psychology. In F. T. L. Leong,
W. E. Pickren, M. M. Leach, & A. J. Marsella (Eds.), International and Cultural
Psychology. Internationalizing the psychology curriculum in the United States
(pp. 51-73). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0073-8_4
6144 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(13-14)

Wolfradt, U., Hempel, S., & Miles, J. N. V. (2003). Perceived parenting styles,
depersonalisation, anxiety and coping behaviour in adolescents. Personality and
Individual Differences, 34, 521-532. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00092-2
World Health Organization. (1996). Prevention of violence: Public health priority
(WHA49.25). Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved from http://www.who.int
/violence_injury_prevention/resources/publications/en/WHA4925_eng.pdf
World Health Organization. (2015). Preventing youth violence: An overview of the
evidence. Luxembourg: Author. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstr
eam/10665/181008/1/9789241509251_eng.pdf
Zacarés, J. J., Serra, E., & Torres, F. (2015). Becoming an adult: A proposed typol-
ogy of adult status based on a study of Spanish youths. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 56, 273-282. doi:10.1111/sjop.12205
Zayas, L. H., & Solari, F. (1994). Early-childhood socialization in Hispanic families:
Context, culture, and practice implications. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 25, 200-206. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.25.3.200

Author Biographies
Oscar F. Garcia is a psychology researcher from the University of Valencia, Spain. His
research and writing are focused on developmental areas and parenting studies and mea-
surement techniques of personal development, self-esteem, and family socialization. He
had participated with many research projects, specialty with student’s engagement in
schools: differentiating and promoting. He also has conducted research examining the
cross-cultural validity of the four-typology model of parental socialization.
Olatz Lopez-Fernandez’s research concerns the educational and psychological aspects
of Internet and technology uses. She is interested in understanding potentially addictive
behaviors influenced by the use of technologies and online contents in different popula-
tions (from community to clinic samples alongside the life span). She is a keen academic;
has published many peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and reports; and regu-
larly presents her research at national and international conferences.
Emilia Serra, PhD, is a full professor of developmental psychology in the Department
of Developmental and Educational Psychology at the University of Valencia, Spain.
She is the director of Master of Psychogerontology at the same university. Her publi-
cations and research interests focus on personality development in adulthood and
aging, identity development in adolescence and emerging adulthood, and develop-
mental optimization throughout life span. She is author of several assessment scales
of psychological maturity in adults.